1. A pilot was about to climb a ladder to a ship 'A'.

At that time, a big ship 'B' passed to

near the 'A' and too fast, causing a wave which struck ship 'A' to roll violently. As a
result the pilot was crushed and fell into the sea and died. Relatives of pilot sued ship
- 'B' for damages - Decide.
Ans: The Maid of Kent, A North Sea pilot was about to climb a ladder from the pilot
launch to board the port side of the ship ‘DS’. At the time, The Maid of Kent passed
the DS too near and too fast, causing a wash, which struck the launch and caused her
to roll violently against the DS. The pilot was crushed between the port side of the DS
and the launch as a result. He fell into the sea and died. His administratrix based the
claim on the FAAs, claiming that the owners of The Maid of Kent were liable for
damages. The claim was dismissed by the learned trial judge, holding that liability
had not been established. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that on the evidence,
those in charge of The Maid of Kent were negligent, in that they failed to see the
effect which the wash from their ship might have had on a small craft. The accident
was foreseeable. The claim could be enforced under this statutory provision (s 20(2)
(f) of the SCA 1981), as the words ‘wrongful act or neglect or default’ are very broad
to cover such claims arising in connection with a ship.
2. The plaintiff M in this case instructed their forwarding agents to arrange shipment of
3 containers of Aerosols. The agents arranged for shipment in the defendents vessel
'A'. Eventually only two containers were presented to the receivers at the port of
discharge and the latter refused to obtain delivery withholding payment of the freight.
The defendents exercised lien upon the goods for freight. The plaintiff issued writ in
rem against the vessel 'A' -Decide
Ans: The Gina, Claims for wrongful detention of goods The plaintiffs in this case,
having received an order from a company in Saudi Arabia for shipment of three
containers of aerosols, instructed their forwarding agents to arrange shipment. The
agents arranged for shipment in the defendants’ vessel. Eventually, only two
containers were presented to the receivers at the port of discharge and the latter
refused to obtain delivery – withholding payment of the freight. The defendants
refused to return the containers, claiming a lien upon the goods for freight.
Contending that it was the defendants’ fault that only two containers reached
destination, the plaintiffs issued a writ in rem against The Gina for wrongful detention
of their goods, contending that their claim came under para (h) of the Act. It was held
that the vessel was properly arrested under that paragraph and the plaintiffs were
 entitled to use the procedures of an admiralty action in rem in order to obtain security
for their claim.

3. Vessel 'A' is owned by 'X' company. 'X' company also had number of contracts
whereby they leased containers from their owner including the plaintiff at a daily rate.
The plaintiff claimed conversion of certain containers and breach of an obligation by
'X' company under the contract to maintain the containers in good condition and
repair. They issued writ in rem and arrested vessel 'A' which belongs to 'X' company.
- Decide.

Ans: The House of Lords in The River Rima made a distinction between the kind of
contract which expressly provides that goods are required for the use of a particular
ship, identified, or to be identified, when the contract comes to be performed, and the
kind of contract which makes no reference to a particular ship, leaving the shipowner
to make his choice later. Claims arising under the first category of contract are
enforceable under this paragraph. The crucial words are ‘supplied to a ship’ which
require identification of the ship on which the containers will be placed. The reason
for this decision was that upon a historical analysis of the jurisdiction of the court
regarding the provision of necessaries supplied to a ship, the identity of a ship was an
essential ingredient. The case involved a vessel owned by the Nigerian National
Shipping Line (NNSL). NNSL had a number of contracts whereby they leased
containers from their owners including the plaintiffs at a daily rate. The plaintiffs
claimed conversion of certain containers and breach of an obligation by NNSL under
the contract to maintain the containers in good condition and repair. They issued a
writ in rem and arrested The River Rima belonging to NNSL. The issue before the
court was whether the action could be maintained as an action in rem. The House of
Lords held that the action did not come within s 20(2)(m) as the contract did not
specify in which ship the containers were to be used, and the contracts were therefore
merely contracts for the supply of containers to the shipowner. Paragraph (m) was
derived from s 1(1) of the AJA 1956 and an essential ingredient of such a claim was
that it should relate to necessaries supplied to a particular and identified ship. As
discussed earlier, one would expect that such claims could be considered as ‘arising
out of any agreement relating to the carriage of goods in a ship’ under s 20(2)(h).
However, Clarke J (as he then was) rejected such a submission in The Lloyd Pacifico,
 mainly because the containers must be provided to a particular ship. Although the
Arrest Convention 1999 has included such claims arising in relation to the supply of
containers, theprovision states also that the containers must be supplied to a particular
ship. Unfortunately, this will not help the container company which supplies
containers under a long term lease agreement, unless a provision is made in the
contract naming the particular ship which will receive them at a time. This, of course,
is neither possible nor practical.
4. A wild gale was raging when two ships X' and 'Y' were lying alongside one another in
the port. In an attempt to put 'X' out to sea, the ropes of Y were cut off. Due to this, 'Y'
drifted ashore and got damaged. Whether Maritime lien is applicable in this case? -
Decide
Ans: A question arose in 1988 whether a claim for pure economic loss can be
enforced under (d). In The Dagmara and The Ama Antixine, 29 the defendants’ vessel
A was being dangerously navigated around vessel D belonging to the plaintiffs, in a
deliberate attempt to drive the D away from the fishing grounds. For fear of their
safety, the master and crew of ship D, left the fishing grounds. The plaintiffs claimed
in tort for damages in respect of damage suffered in the form of financial loss. Sheen
J, referring to the judgment of the House of Lords in Currie v M’Knight, held as
follows: The judgment of Cairns LJ establishes that damage may be done by a ship,
not only without direct physical contact, such as a collision, but also without any
transmitted physical force, such as a wash. It was held that the plaintiffs had a valid
cause for an action in tort to be enforced under this head. In this connection, it is
important to refer to the factual situation of the Currie v M’Knight, 30 in which the
principle for enforcement of claims under this sub-paragraph was laid down. A heavy
gale was raging when the vessel D and the vessel E were lying alongside one another
in the port. In an attempt to put D out to sea, her crew cut off the ropes of E, so that
the latter drifted ashore and was damaged. The question in the action was whether the
wrongful act of D’s crew was sufficient to create a maritime lien for the damage to E.
Lord Halsbury stated: … the phrase that ‘it must be the fault of the ship itself’ is not a
mere figurative expression, but it imports, in my opinion, that the ship against which a
maritime lien for damages is claimed is the instrument of mischief, and that, in order
to establish the liability of the ship itself to the maritime lien claimed, some act of
navigation of the ship itself should either mediately or immediately be the cause of the
damage. 31 It was held that the act was a wrongful act of self-preservation, but was
 not an act of navigation, even though other ships were damaged. The section requires
the act not just to be an act of the crew, but one in the course of their navigation. This
act was done for the purpose of removing an obstacle, whichprevented D from
starting her voyage. The doctrine of maritime liens could not be extended to cover
such a case. and it can be enforced as such under s 21(3) of the SCA 1981. A claim
for damage done by a ship gives rise to a maritime lien.
5. A mobile offshore drilling unit was arrested for the purpose of obtaining security in
relation to a dispute under a Sub-Charter Party, which is in reference to arbitration.
An application was filed by the defendant to set aside the arrest on the ground that the
drilling unit was not a ship. Decide.
Ans: In a recent Scottish case, Global Marine Drilling & Co v Triton Holdings Ltd
(The Sovereign Explorer), a mobile offshore drilling unit was arrested for the purpose
of obtaining security in relation to a dispute under a sub-charter party, which was
referred to arbitration. An application by the defendant to set aside the arrest on the
ground that the Sovereign Explorer was not a ship was refused by Lord Marnoch on
12 November 1999. There was an appeal to the Scottish Court of Session regarding
the adequacy of the security offered for her release from arrest and this issue was not
questioned.